IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17760 of 2023
Decided On : 29-03-2024
Disciplinary - Service Dismissal - Article 226 - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in departmental inquiries, particularly when major penalties are involved, highlighting the failure to conduct a proper inquiry in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service after disciplinary proceedings, claiming that the inquiry was flawed as no proper procedure was followed, including the lack of fixed dates and examination of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary inquiry did not adhere to established principles of procedural fairness, as the employer failed to prove the charges against the petitioner through proper evidence and inquiry.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was justified given the alleged procedural irregularities in the disciplinary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a formal inquiry must be conducted with fixed dates, times, and the examination of witnesses, especially when a major penalty is involved, and the burden of proof lies with the employer.
Result: The court quashed the dismissal orders and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. The petitioner, Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava, has instituted the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Chairman, Regional Authority Administrative Committee, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh/Deputy Commissioner & Deputy Registrar (for short, 'the Disciplinary Authority'), dismissing the petitioner, a Cooperative Supervisor, from service after disciplinary proceedings. A recovery of the entire sum of money paid to the petitioner in salary from the date of his appointment till his dismissal has also been ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. Also under challenge is an appellate order dated 30.8.2023 made by the Member Secretary, State Level Authority Committee, Cooperative Federation Authority, Lucknow (for short, 'the Appellate Authority').
2. The petitioner's case is that his father, the late Ram Chandra Lal, was a Kaamgar, employed under the U.P. Cooperative Union. He died in harness on 7.1.1992. The record seems to show that the petitioner's father was in fact employed as a Cooperative Inspector. The petitioner was solely dependent on his deceased father for sustenance. Consequent upon his demise, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. An application was made by Smt. Nirmala Devi, the petitioner's mother, for the purpose, to the respondents on 18.6.1992. During the course of consideration of the petitioner's claim, a complaint was laid to the effect that the petitioner was not the late Ram Chandra Lal's son. This complaint appears to have been made by someone, claiming herself to be Vimla Devi, the late Ram Chandra Lal's wife. It said that she has no son, but merely relatives. A copy of the complaint was communicated to the petitioner's mother, Smt. Vimla Devi, wife of the late Ram Chandra Lal. Smt. Nirmala Devi, in response to the communication dated 18.12.1997, a copy of which was marked to her, moved an application dated 31.12.1997, enclosing with it all documents, relating to the petitioner. It was said that on account of animosity amongst the the family, a frivolous complaint had been made.
3. On the 27th of April, 1998, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow forwarded all papers relating to the petitioner's appointment to the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd., Lucknow. Later on, the matter was laid before the State Level Administrative Committee in a meeting of their's held on 18.5.1999. A decision was taken vide Resolution No. 15 of the said date to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Based upon the said decision, the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd., Lucknow passed an order dated 1.6.1999, directing the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Varanasi to issue an appointment letter in the petitioner's favour. In compliance with the aforesaid direction of the Managing Director, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Chairman, Regional Level Committee, Varanasi issued an appointment letter dated 27.6.1999, appointing the petitioner on the post of a Cooperative Supervisor on compassionate basis. The petitioner joined service on 20.7.1999. He has thereafter rendered continuous service. The petitioner says that he has been posted at different places since his appointment. He was posted in the year 2012 at Sarai Meer, Azamgarh. While posted at Sarai Meer, the petitioner was given officiating charge of the Sarai Meer Branch of the District Cooperative Bank, Azamgarh. The petitioner's work and conduct, according to him, has been satisfactory and there is no cause for complaint.
4. In the year 2016, Mr. Krishna Murari Lal, Advocate, moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of some documents pertaining to the petitioner. Acting on the basis thereof, the Appellate Authority, vide a memo dated 6.1.2016, required the petitioner to submit a certified copy of his Pariwar Register and the original of his succession certificate. In response, the petitione
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others
Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB)(LB)
State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another
State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another
A disciplinary inquiry must follow procedural fairness, including the establishment's burden to prove charges through evidence, especially when major penalties are at stake.
A fair inquiry process is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to adhere to procedural requirements can invalidate dismissal orders.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for defense, especially when imposing major penalties.
In cases involving the imposition of a major penalty, the establishment must prove charges by examining evidence, particularly witnesses, and adhere to the principles of natural justice in the domest....
In disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties, the burden of proof lies with the establishment to substantiate charges through a fair inquiry process that includes the presentation of evidenc....
The inquiry process for major penalties must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring evidence from the Establishment and proper notice to the accused.
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
(1) Dismissal – [Departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint that an evasive reply thereto may amount to admission – In a departmental enquiry, unless charge is admitted, burden to prove charge lies on....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.